Can the Republican Party be Banned?

[emilynghiem]

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

The estimated population in the United States in was 324,227,000 The difference of 2.5 M is for all accounts relatively half. While we're offering self help to each other I'll go "work on my fractions", and you can return to Pee Wee's Playhouse.

Dear Denechek
The votes were collected and counted under the Electoral system of giving all votes of that state to the majority winner.

If you want an accurate popular vote, then we need to set up a separate system for that where the different intent is clear. Some people don't vote if they know their state I going red or blue anyway or they vote third party, so if you change that they might change how they vote!
It would have to include a built in runoff so that the top two candidates don't lose votes to third parties that skew the results.

I think we need representation by party anyway.

By your system of majority popular vote, the third parties would never get anywhere at all.

It would be like excluding religious diversity and only letting Christians win govt offices because they have more members voting in each election.

If you would object to that, you should object to one party dominating and dictating for the rest of the country that has different beliefs too!

 

[Denechek]

Right, and you can ignore the ruins in Rome. While Europe is drowning in Muslim refugees try to ignore what they do to centuries old archaeological sites. I feel better about my prospects here.

 

[Denechek]

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

I don't know why you are under the impression that I am against the outcome of the election or that I would prefer to ignore the electoral college but you are misunderstanding my position. As far as people other than Christians holding public office the only religious test we have for that is the vote of the American people. We currently have persons of other faiths holding office, so I still am at a loss to understand your responses to me. The only area of some difference we might have in our relative positions is that I do not consider Islam to be a religion. I consider it to be an ideology with a religious component. Even so, we have Muslims in public office as well. I see that an official declaration that Sharia Law be declared unconstitutional as consistent with our own form of government, and if one has trouble understanding that Sharia Law is in fact Muslim then I would suggest further research.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

The estimated population in the United States in was 324,227,000 The difference of 2.5 M is for all accounts relatively half. While we're offering self help to each other I'll go "work on my fractions", and you can return to Pee Wee's Playhouse.

Dear Denechek
The votes were collected and counted under the Electoral system of giving all votes of that state to the majority winner.

If you want an accurate popular vote, then we need to set up a separate system for that.
It would have to include a built in runoff so that the top two candidates don't lose votes to third parties that skew the results.

I think we need representation by party anyway.

By your system of majority popular vote, the third parties would never get anywhere at all.

It would be like excluding religious diversity and only letting Christians win govt offices because they have more members voting in each election.

If you would object to that, you should object to one party dominating and dictating for the rest of the country that has different beliefs too!

 

[Denechek]

By your system of majority popular vote, the third parties would never get anywhere at all.

You are misunderstanding my position.

 

[Claudette]

Lets see if you can ban the Republican party.

First Lets test it out as they ban the Democratic party.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No. The trump administration cannot and would not ban the republican party

The American people are doing a good job of eliminating the democratic party.

 

[kaz]

Can the Republican Party be Banned?

Um ... no ...

 

[emilynghiem]

By your system of majority popular vote, the third parties would never get anywhere at all.

You are misunderstanding my position.

Dear Denechek
If you read my ENTIRE message, I was answering a lot more than just your position, but addressing the whole problem of
how to represent diverse populations and beliefs. Not just YOUR point.

if you want to just focus on YOUR point ie
"The estimated population in the United States in was 324,227,000 The difference of 2.5 M is for all accounts relatively half. While we're offering self help to each other I'll go "work on my fractions", and you can return to Pee Wee's Playhouse."

The votes on Nov. 9 were based on the Electoral College System.
If you want to count POPULAR VOTES ACCURATELY
then it needs to be agreed upon by all candidates and voters to FOCUS
on POPULAR VOTES AND NOT ON ELECTORAL VOTES.

If you want an ACCURATE POPULAR VOTE, based on MAJORITY RULE counting only
the TOTAL POPULAR VOTES, then we need to find out if the 3-5 MILLION VOTES
that went to THIRD PARTIES would still GO TO THIRD PARTIES OR WOULD GO TO THE TOP TWO CANDIDATES.

THEN you can count the results as representing the POPULAR VOTE.

Otherwise, you are giving advantage to high population areas that can organize and get their votes in high numbers,
and not counting all the people spread out over other regions that were depending on the Electoral College to count their votes PROPORTIONALLY BY STATE.

If you CHANGE THE GAME PLAN to POPULAR VOTE ONLY,
you have to INFORM ALL THESE OTHER VOTERS FIRST as well as the Candidates
THAT YOU ARE NOT USING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
so that the people have a CHANCE to organize their CAMPAIGNS AND VOTER STRATEGY without depending on the Electoral College system.

====================================================================
NOTE:
Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500, Winning 83% Of The Geographic Nation

DONALD TRUMP WON 2,600 COUNTIES (COMPARED WITH CLINTON'S 500),
WINNING 83 PERCENT OF THE NATION GEOGRAPHICALLY.

IF ONLY 3000 COUNTIES WERE COUNTED, TAKING OUT THE TOP 100 MOST POPULOUS,
TRUMP WOULD HAVE WON THE COUNTIES' POPULAR VOTE BY 11.5 MILLION

Donald Trump is the most popular Republican candidate in history bringing in over 62.4 million votes during the 2016 presidential election. He also secured victories in at least 83 percent of the counties in the United States. Trump is also ranked the third most popular presidential candidate in history. However, there is one huge difference in Trump’s popular vote win and that of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump is the only popular vote candidate in the top three to receive success in more than 25 percent of the county-level vote, a victory that has all but been overlooked in the media due to the popular vote margin and recount initiatives.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton received their substantial popular vote tally while receiving an all-time low percentage of U.S. counties. Barack Obama set the record for the lowest number of counties won for a successful presidential candidate.

“President Obama established an all-time low percentage of U.S. counties for a successful presidential candidate: just 689 of more than 3,000, or a paltry 22%.”

NBC News notes that Barack Obama won with less than a 25 percent victory rate across all of the U.S. counties, scrapping in with a county victory rate of just 22 percent. Should Hillary Clinton have won the race based on popular vote alone, she would have beat Obama’s record of an all-time low with just a 15-17 percent success rate of the county-level vote.

However, the situation was very different for the Republican party’s most successful candidate, Donald Trump. The president-elect accomplished something unprecedented by ranking in the top three most popular candidates while maintaining a drastic county-level lead over Clinton. Trump received his popular vote count while earning a victory in 83-85 percent of the counties within the United States. In fact, the Atlantic notes that Trump’s lead in 3,000 of the 3,100 counties was so significant it would have resulted in a landslide victory for the businessman. If the top 100 most populous counties are removed and the remaining 3,000 counties were only counted, Trump won the 3,000 counties’ popular vote by 11.5 million votes.


Read more at Donald Trump Won 2,600 Counties Compared To Clinton’s 500, Winning 83% Of The Geographic Nation

 

[Denechek]

Thank you for re-posting.

By your system of majority popular vote, the third parties would never get anywhere at all.

Is what threw me off, since I have never professed that the popular vote was "my" standard. I appreciate the inclusion of additional information.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you for re-posting.

By your system of majority popular vote, the third parties would never get anywhere at all.

Is what threw me off, since I have never professed that the popular vote was "my" standard. I appreciate the inclusion of additional information.

Thank you Denechek you're a real winner!
We need more people like you on this board,
And in politics and govt so things can change.
I hope to see your influence and contributions
Do just that! Thanks, take care, and more power to you! Keep posting and I look forward
to reading and hearing more from you,
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[buckeye45_73]

Can the Republican Party be Banned?

A combination of Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France and the Italian referendum has freaked out the establishment. In the corridors of power in Westminster, politicians and government officials are terrified of a populist, patriotic upsurge in Britain. They are desperate to take action to stop this happening, by any means available.

Just last week, a Labour MP, Louise Haigh, stood up in Parliament and demanded that Britain First be BANNED as a terrorist organization saying the House of Commons should debate whether Britain First should be proscribed as a terrorist organization and banned from standing in democratic elections, which would prohibit the far-right group from arranging meetings or rallying support.

To be fair, she asked to consider listing Britain First as a “terrorist organization” following the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right white supremacist. However, In a post shared on its Facebook page, the far-right group dismissed the witness account of the killing as "pure hearsay". And it accused the media of "desperately" trying to incriminate them in the attack on the Labour MP Jo Cox, which took place today in Leeds.

The controversial group, which has been criticized in the past as racist, gave its full response before the MP's death was confirmed on its website. West Yorkshire Police have now announced that the MP died of her injuries. Her time of death was given as 1.48pm, shortly after the attack at 1pm. It read: "A single eyewitness also claimed (unconfirmed) that the assailant 'apparently' shouted 'Britain First' during the attack, but this is pure hearsay at the moment.

"There is lots of use of words such as 'apparently' and 'allegedly'. That hasn’t stopped the media publishing multiple articles condemning Britain First for somehow being involved.

"Britain First obviously is NOT involved and would never encourage behavior of this sort. As an MP and a mother, we pray that Jo Cox makes a full recovery." Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of the nationalist group, condemned the attack and insisted it was nothing to do with Britain First activists. She said: "This is hearsay. We are not hearing anything from within our organization. We were as shocked as I expect anyone else to see these news reports."

"We absolutely condemn this kind of behavior, we think it is disgusting in fact, and attacking an MP is an attack on democracy," she told LBC.

​

Jo Cox, was airlifted to Leeds General Infirmary hospital, but medics were unable to save her. The mother-of-two was left lying in a pool of blood on the pavement after her assailant stabbed her, an eyewitness said.

It was claimed she had become involved in a scuffle between a man wearing a baseball cap and another male. Then – when a bystander intervened – the attacker pulled out a "handmade" gun, stepped back and shot her twice, it's claimed. After that, the attacker is thought to have blasted her in the face as well as stabbing the 41-year-old MP.

Aamir Tahir, of nearby Dry Clean Centre, said the gunman was heard shouting "Britain first".

Evidently the lone witness appears to be of some Muslim leanings, considering the name Aamir Tahir. In a U.S. court of law that could make them what is known as a “hostile witness” considering the investment of a certain outcome.

​

The question remains, could the powers that be use this event as a precedent and take steps to eviscerate the populist movement here in the United States? They might start with the Tea Party which would undermine Republicans. Imagine outlawing freedom of assembly or listing the Tea Party as a terrorist organization. How do you think that would affect the future of political debate? What if the “news media” decided it was going to push that agenda 24-7? How would you respond?

Britain First responds furiously to claim MP Jo Cox killer shouted their name

No

 

[buckeye45_73]

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

Fake votes dont count

 

[NoNukes]

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

Fake votes dont count

Prove there were fake votes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh cool, let's ban political opposition.

You people have lost your minds.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Who's going to ban them? The Republicans are in charge

President Trump has pissed off a few Republicrats, look at Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Half the country voted for Heillery and the "establishment" Republicrats who are threatened by the Tea Party could join the ranks.

The other half voted for Trump and put Trump in th White House....yet another stunning blow in a string of stunning blows to the demoquacks.

It was not half, Hillary got 2 1/2 million more votes. You need work on your fractions.

Fake votes dont count

Prove there were fake votes.

Too soon, but

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...llions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

 

[yiostheoy]

Can the Republican Party be Banned?

A combination of Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France and the Italian referendum has freaked out the establishment. In the corridors of power in Westminster, politicians and government officials are terrified of a populist, patriotic upsurge in Britain. They are desperate to take action to stop this happening, by any means available.

Just last week, a Labour MP, Louise Haigh, stood up in Parliament and demanded that Britain First be BANNED as a terrorist organization saying the House of Commons should debate whether Britain First should be proscribed as a terrorist organization and banned from standing in democratic elections, which would prohibit the far-right group from arranging meetings or rallying support.

To be fair, she asked to consider listing Britain First as a “terrorist organization” following the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right white supremacist. However, In a post shared on its Facebook page, the far-right group dismissed the witness account of the killing as "pure hearsay". And it accused the media of "desperately" trying to incriminate them in the attack on the Labour MP Jo Cox, which took place today in Leeds.

The controversial group, which has been criticized in the past as racist, gave its full response before the MP's death was confirmed on its website. West Yorkshire Police have now announced that the MP died of her injuries. Her time of death was given as 1.48pm, shortly after the attack at 1pm. It read: "A single eyewitness also claimed (unconfirmed) that the assailant 'apparently' shouted 'Britain First' during the attack, but this is pure hearsay at the moment.

"There is lots of use of words such as 'apparently' and 'allegedly'. That hasn’t stopped the media publishing multiple articles condemning Britain First for somehow being involved.

"Britain First obviously is NOT involved and would never encourage behavior of this sort. As an MP and a mother, we pray that Jo Cox makes a full recovery." Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of the nationalist group, condemned the attack and insisted it was nothing to do with Britain First activists. She said: "This is hearsay. We are not hearing anything from within our organization. We were as shocked as I expect anyone else to see these news reports."

"We absolutely condemn this kind of behavior, we think it is disgusting in fact, and attacking an MP is an attack on democracy," she told LBC.

​

Jo Cox, was airlifted to Leeds General Infirmary hospital, but medics were unable to save her. The mother-of-two was left lying in a pool of blood on the pavement after her assailant stabbed her, an eyewitness said.

It was claimed she had become involved in a scuffle between a man wearing a baseball cap and another male. Then – when a bystander intervened – the attacker pulled out a "handmade" gun, stepped back and shot her twice, it's claimed. After that, the attacker is thought to have blasted her in the face as well as stabbing the 41-year-old MP.

Aamir Tahir, of nearby Dry Clean Centre, said the gunman was heard shouting "Britain first".

Evidently the lone witness appears to be of some Muslim leanings, considering the name Aamir Tahir. In a U.S. court of law that could make them what is known as a “hostile witness” considering the investment of a certain outcome.

​

The question remains, could the powers that be use this event as a precedent and take steps to eviscerate the populist movement here in the United States? They might start with the Tea Party which would undermine Republicans. Imagine outlawing freedom of assembly or listing the Tea Party as a terrorist organization. How do you think that would affect the future of political debate? What if the “news media” decided it was going to push that agenda 24-7? How would you respond?

Britain First responds furiously to claim MP Jo Cox killer shouted their name

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

 

[Johann]

I think since we own all 3 branches of Government - legislative, Judicial and the Presidency...

I think if any party is going to be banned, it's going to be the demoshit party.